Donald Trump visited On The Record last night to promote his never-gonna-happen presidency and boast about his never-gonna-happen plan for “total victory” over ISIS. It's a plan Trump doesn't want to reveal unless he’s elected president.
Trump claimed he never supported the invasion of Iraq but now that we’re there, we have to “do something.” He said, “ISIS is far worse than Iraq was ever going to be and we have to go in there very powerfully and strongly.”
“Alright, doing what though?” host Greta Van Susteren asked. “What would you do?”
It turns out that’s top secret info.
TRUMP: I do know what to do and I would know how to bring ISIS to the table or beyond that, defeat ISIS very quickly and I’m not going to tell you what it is tonight. …I don’t want the enemy to know what I’m doing.
But later, Trump admitted, “Unfortunately, I’ll probably have to tell at some point.”
As far as I can tell, Trump never served a minute in the U.S. military (though he did attend a military academy for high school). But, naturally, a genius like Trump doesn’t need no stinkin’ military experience to defeat ISIS!
TRUMP: There is a method of defeating them quickly and effectively and having total victory. …All I can tell you is that it is a foolproof way of winning and I’m not talking about what some people would say but it is a foolproof way of winning the war with ISIS and it will be absolutely 100%. They’ll at a minimum come to the table and actually, they’ll be defeated very quickly. Very, very quickly.
What kind of “patriot” comes up with a “foolproof” strategy to defeat ISIS but insists on keeping it secret while he runs for president?
Probably the same kind of “patriot” who accused our president of being foreign-born despite a mountain of evidence to the contrary. Also the same kind of “patriot” who, in 2011, claimed he sent a team of investigators to Hawaii to sniff out the truth about Obama’s birth “and they cannot believe what they’re finding.” Yet this big “patriot” has yet to announce the results of that big investigation. Maybe he's waiting on that one until he wins the election, too.
Not that Van Susteren asked him about whatever happened to the big birther probe, of course.
Trump said he’ll decide whether or not he’s running “during the month of June and I think I’ll surprise a lot of people.” He continued, “‘Cause, you know, every time people think I’m going to run, I do great in the polls. …I’m stronger in the military than anybody.”
Trump insisted that the 2016 election will not be a “popularity contest” but “based on competence.”
Well, I hate to tell you this, Donald, but when FactCheck.org exhaustively examined the birther issue, they wrote this: “If Donald Trump worked for us, we’d have to say: ‘Donald, you’re fired — for incompetence.’”
Watch the baloney below, from the May 27 On The Record.
I rather tend to think the people over at Birther Report, are closer to the mark (http://www.birtherreport.com/2015/03/state-department-refutes-harvard-law.html)
The “natural born Citizen” clause pertains to the civic status required to be eligible for public office, whereas the 14th Amendment specifically confers the political status of membership in the nation alone. Neither clause contradicts, nor limits the other. While 14th Amendment citizens may be eligible for the office of President, the Amendment does not automatically establish eligibility. If the 14th Amendment had been intended to repeal the natural-born citizen clause, then it would contain specific language to that extent. To imply that it does, would require a complete abandonment of long-established rules of statutory construction:
“Where there is no clear intention otherwise, a specific statute will not be controlled or nullified by a general one, regardless of the priority of enactment. See, e. g., Bulova Watch Co. v. United States, 365 U.S. 753, 758 (1961); Rodgers v. United States, 185 U.S. 83, 87 -89 (1902).
1. Thomas Jefferson availed himself of the “grandfather” clause in Article II.
2. James BUCHANAN – was an Article II natural born citizen (NBC), both parents were US citizens when he was born in 1791 in PA. His father was foreign born, Irish, but when James was born his father had already been naturalized.
3. Chester A. Arthur did, indeed, successfully hide the fact that his father became a naturalized US citizen 14 years after he was born.
4. Woodrow Wilson & 5. Herbert Hoover were Article II natural born US citizens via the Doctrine of Couverture, which bestowed naturalized US citizenship on foreign-born women who married US citizen husbands.
6. Andrew Jackson, like Thomas Jefferson, was covered by Article II grandfather clause. He was born in 1767 in Carolinas.
“Obama does suffer from two problems as it relates to his presidential qualifications. If we assume he was born where and when he states; he was still born subject to another foreign soverengity, as he, himself, states in his autobiography, ‘Dreams of my Father’ i.e., he was born, by descent, a British subject as his father was a British subject at the time of his birth.”
EARTH TO DAVID FARRAR:
President Obama’s birth on US SOIL (Hawaii) makes him A US CITIZEN PER AMENDMENT XIV OF THE US CONSTITUTION. THE END.
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” — US Constitution, Amendment XIV, Section 1
Note: the above passage states nothing about a child “inheriting” the citizenship of a non-US citizen parent. (Would be nice if all you rightwingnut “strict Constitutionalists” would actually spend some time READING the document.)
“By definition, an Art. II §I Cl. 5 natural born Citizen, born of two US citizen-parent within the jurisdiction would be free of these complications.”
The following US Presidents had one foreign-born parent:
- Thomas Jefferson (English Mother)
- James Buchanan (Irish Father)
- Chester A. Arthur (Irish Father)
- Woodrow Wilson (English Mother)
- Herbert Hoover (Canadian Mother)
and one had two:
- Andrew Jackson (both parents Irish)
Yet, neither their citizenship nor their eligibility for the presidency has ever been questioned — for one simple reason: THEY WERE BORN ON US SOIL.
Birthers: trapped on a planet of stupidity, sustained by an atmosphere of ignorance . . .
Thank you for capitulating the point by attempting to resort to Saul Alinsky’s 12 Rules for Radicals, specifically, Rule # 5:<strong>“Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions."</strong> It’s a smokescreen maneuver of course, a diversion, to allow you to run away from the facts and construct you can’t address directly through a coherent impeachment construct or facts yourself.
John, to me, it’s just the difference between “proving” a fact and assuming the fact is proven. Those who “believe” Obama has met his presidential burden assume certain facts to be proven, when, in fact, they are only assumed to be proven. Typically, when push come to shove on this point, Obama supporters unusually fall back on Obama’s birth certificate as their proof.
“The Court finds the testimony of the witnesses, as well as the exhibits tendered, to be of little, if any, probative value, and thus wholly insufficient to support plaintiffs’ allegations.”
Let me suggest to you, “…little, if any, probative value,” is a whole universe more than “no probative value” whatsoever contained in Obama’s birth certificate. This is the fundamental error, IMHO, in the judge’s ruling in the Georgia case.
But you are correct: Obama does suffer from two problems as it relates to his presidential qualifications. If we assume he was born where and when he states; he was still born subject to another foreign soverengity, as he, himself, states in his autobiography, “Dreams of my Father” i.e., he was born, by descent, a British subject as his father was a British subject at the time of his birth. Sen Cruz also has the same shortcoming, in addition to his place of birth. By definition, an Art. II §I Cl. 5 natural born Citizen, born of two US citizen-parent within the jurisdiction would be free of these complications.
ROFLMAO!! Lemme get this straight, Dave: are you really saying that President Obama’s birth in Hawaii — US soil for nearly 56 years, and for nearly two years at the time of the President’s birth — STILL makes him ineligible??
If so, I can’t WAIT to hear what you and the other birther clowns have to say on the eligibility of the Canadian-born Ted Cruz for president . . .
Btw, this David Farrar who has made an appearance here is most likely the same longtime birther and litigant that sued to keep President Obama’s name off the Georgia primary ballot (with birther Queen, Orly Taitz, as his and the other ligants’ attorney). If you haven’t already started chuckling, regarding the case that Taitz presented on behalf of Farrar and the 4 other litigants, Judge Malihi wrote: “The Court finds the testimony of the witnesses, as well as the exhibits tendered, to be of little, if any, probative value, and thus wholly insufficient to support plaintiffs’ allegations.” The Court’s decision stated that, after analysis, “President Barack Obama was born in the United States”, “he became a citizen at birth” and “is a natural born citizen” – by which the Judge conclusion was that “President Barack Obama is eligible as a candidate for the presidential primary election.” GA Sec of State Kemp accepted the Judge’s recommendation and kept Obama on the ballot.
(See Orly Taitz Wiki page and http://www.osah.ga.gov/documents/Cases/Final%20Decision%202.3.2012.PDF)
As to what mj said: “Shorter David Farrar and other AfterBirthers: “I reject your facts and reality, and replace them with my own” – it seems you’re not the only one to reach this conclusion. LOL!
“Farrar contends, however, that Barack Obama, even if born in Hawaii, is still ineligible. In his belief system, there is no proof that could counter that belief because when a court rules against him, he can just claim that they are wrong.”
Republicans and their secret, fool-proof plans…………and some actually believe their bull crap
Shorter David Farrar and other AfterBirthers:
“I reject your facts and reality, and replace them with my own.”
After eight years, along with the “mountain of evidence” regarding President Obama’s citizenship, there’s apparently also a “mountain of stupidity” built up by the Birfers . . .
Anyway . . . as for The Combover, if it was any other rightwingnut, I’d say they must have a new book coming out; that’s the only reason they’re on Fox talking about secret plans — but since its Trump, I believe he’s simply gearing up for season 15 of “The Apprentice”.
Logic, the laws of probability and the common understanding of cause and effect seem to go into deep sleep mode whenever there is conflict between what they want to believe and what is glaringly, unquestionably, perfectly fucking obvious.
I apologize; I didn’t catch your link.
If you will allow me to address only the documentary evidence you present as “evidence” that Obama was born in Hawaii.
1. Obama’s natal hospital records are confidential (as you state). It would be unlawful for Honolulu’s Kapi’olani Medical Center to state otherwise. The letter to which you refer was written by Obama, himself. It is his statement, not Honolulu’s Kapi’olani Medical Center. Kapi’olani is simply re-publishing Obama’s statement for advertising purposes.
2. Any probate attorney worth his/er salt will tell you a state certified birth certificate is only prima facie evidence that a live birth occurred and an official record of that birth exist. Birth certificates were never designed to provide proof of identify, as a stand-alone document, to do so is an abuse of the birth certificate. What state certified birth documents can do in most cases is provide additional information that will provide additional, independent, corroborative evidence that would “prove” by the preponderance of evidence that information contained on a state certified birth document is accurate. Unfortunately, in Mr. Obama’s case, neither his short form nor his long form birth certificates had any probative value whatsoever. That is, there is nothing contained in either document that would generate independent, corroborating evidence to substantiate any of the information contained in Obama’s Hawaiian Health Department records.
Additionally, no court will allow the jpg of a state certificate birth certificate to be entered into evidence. To date, I am unaware of any court of competent jurisdiction having entered Obama’s two birth certificate into evidence. Unless, or until, this happens, discussing the authenticity of Obama’s posted birth certificate is meaningless at best and an outright diversion at worse.
3 As the “certification stamp” stamped on Obama’s birth certificate, this is simply a accurate “copy” of the records contained in the Hawaiian Health Department file for one Barack H. Obama. It says nothing about the veracity of those records.
4 As you correctly point out, the two contemporaneous newspaper announcements of Obama’s birth that appeared in Hawaii newspapers in 1961 were taken directly from Hawaiian Health Department file. These were “public service” birth announcements, generated by the very record (Hawaiian Health Department record) we are trying to substantiate with independent, corroborative evidence. If these announcements had been paid for by a private third-party i.e. the proud grandparents announcing the birth of their first grandson, then it would have, indeed, provided just the kind of “independent”, corroborative evidence birthers have been seeking to substantiate the information contained in Obama’s Hawaiian Health Department file.
5 As far as I know, there are no real birthers who are suggesting that Obama’s early childhood did not included time living in Hawaii.
So now your mountain of “evidence” has been reduced to hearsay as to when and where Obama was actual born, which may be enough for some, but the fact remains it is certainly not a “proven fact”.
His plan probably involves getting them to buy one of his shitty Casino/Hotels, pumping all there money into it, and then they go bankrupt like he does. Then as President, he denies there request for bankruptcy protection and BOOM, no more ISIS!
Great plan Donald!
- Independent of Hawaiian Health Department record
I say let’s send Donald Tacky to ISIS territory. It’s worth a shot.